View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Lennon, Harrison and...
Harrison and McCartney are not all that bad for boys. They could be called Harry and Mac. I find Lennon atrocious for a girl, but there are so many surnames being used on girls these days, that I don't think anyone will bat an eye. I don't think that anyone will even assume it's for John Lennon until and unless they learn her brothers' names.Now Ringo would be bad.But really I have to add. I like the Beatles as much as the next person. Probably more than most younger people do. I like their music. I have never cared one whit about them as persons. I don't even think that Lennon was the saint that he is made out to be. What did they do? They were talented songwriters and musicians, that much is undeniable. That's all that anyone who didn't know them personally can say. Is that enough to name a child for? I don't think so.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

Here, here!I totally agree with you that Lennon is terrible for a girl and generally hate surnames on girls anyway. I also don't understand the need for people to name their children after celebrities they have never met! That child knows nothing about the celebrity they are named after when born and who are we as parents, to throw our love of someone onto that child anyway! I would have to laugh if the kids grew up loathing The Beatles!
vote up1
Yeah, if you've read anything about John Lennon, he wasn't actually a very good person...
vote up1
I was just going to say this. The man made incredible music, but he was something of a poser and an asshole. Just ask his first wife and son.
vote up1
agree with most of this ...And having a Beatles'-themed sibset is very cheesy and sounds like a gag on a sitcom. And gags tend to quit being funny pretty fast.
Ringo would make a good name for a dog or cat.
vote up1